Ex Parte Maystrovsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2013

10839033 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/839,033 05/04/2004 Gennady David Maystrovsky 4148.1033-000 5838
21005 7590 05/20/2013
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
HAJNIK, DANIEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GENNADY DAVID MAYSTROVSKY, BYUNGWOOK KWON,
and CHUN-YI HU
____________

Appeal 2010-012140
Application 10/839,033
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-31. Claim 3 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generally relates to a CAD modeling technique
in which a three-dimensional target model is deformed using a three-
dimensional model tool in accordance with a surface deformation procedure
that produces a smoothed shape of the tool model in the region of the target
Appeal 2010-012140
Application 10/839,033

2
model. See generally Abstract, Spec. p. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative with
disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for deforming a three
dimensional target model using a three-dimensional tool model to
cause a change of shape of the target model, the method comprising:
selecting the three-dimensional tool model, the tool model
representing an archetype of a shape to impress upon the three-
dimensional target model, wherein the target model has an underlying
topological structure; and
deforming the target model in accordance with a surface
deformation procedure that produces a smoothed shape of the tool
model in a region of the target model, wherein the target model has a
same number of faces and edges before and after the deforming.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Angelidis et al., Modeling Deformation Using Swept User-
Defined Tools, Technical Report OUCS-2003-03, Department
of Computer Science, University of Otago and
GRAVIR-IMAG (2003) (“Angelidis”)
Requicha et al., Boolean Operations in Solid Modeling:
Boundary Evaluation and Merging Algorithms, Proceedings of
the IEEE Journal, Vol. 73, Num. 1, pp. 30-44 (1985)
(“Requicha”)
Boardman et al., Inside 3D Studio Max 2 Volume II:, Modeling
& Materials, New Riders (1998) (“Boardman”)
Barr, Ray Tracing Deformed Surfaces, Computer Graphics,
International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive
Techniques, Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on
Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pp. 287-296
(1986) (“Barr”)

Appeal 2010-012140
Application 10/839,033

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Angelidis and Requicha. Ans. 3-9.1
2. Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Angelidis, Requicha, and Boardman. Ans. 10-11.
3. Claims 16, 17, 21-24, and 28-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Angelidis, Requicha, and Barr. Ans. 11-16.
4. Claims 18-20 and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Angelidis, Requicha, Barr, and Boardman. Ans. 17-18.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ANGELIDIS AND REQUICHA
The Examiner finds that Angelidis discloses every recited element of
representative claim 1 except for “wherein the target model has an
underlying topological structure,” but cites Requicha as teaching this feature
in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that (1) Angelidis does not disclose topological
structures; (2) Requicha does not disclose deforming without changing the
underlying topological structure; and (3) a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not combine Angelidis and Requicha. App. Br. 7-14.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 19,
2007 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 30, 2009
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed Jun. 1, 2009 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-012140
Application 10/839,033

4
ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Angelidis and Requicha collectively would have taught or
suggested:
(a) “wherein the target model has an underlying topological
structure” and
(b) “wherein the target model has a same number of faces and
edges before and after the deforming”?
(2) Was the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of these
references improper?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1.
Appellants’ argument that Angelidis does not disclose “wherein the
target model has an underlying topological structure” (App. Br. 8-11, 13) is
unpersuasive. The Examiner relies upon Requicha, not Angelidis, to
disclose this limitation. Ans. 5. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, Appellants do not dispute that Requicha discloses this feature.
App. Br. 7-15.
Appellants’ argument that Requicha does not disclose “wherein the
target model has a same number of faces and edges before and after the
Appeal 2010-012140
Application 10/839,033

5
deforming” is unpersuasive for the same reason. The Examiner relies upon
Angelidis, not Requicha, to disclose this limitation. Ans. 4-5. Appellants do
not argue that Angelidis does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 11-12.
Finally, Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not combine Angelidis and Requicha is also unpersuasive.
Appellants’ argument that Requicha teaches creating new faces and edges
(App. Br. 13) ignores the fact that the Examiner relies upon Angelidis, not
Requicha, to disclose this limitation. Ans. 4-5. Similarly, Appellants’
argument that the resulting object suggested by Angelidis will have new
faces (Id.) is not commensurate with claim 1, which requires only that “the
target model has a same number of faces and edges before and after the
deforming.” Even Dr. Mann concedes that “the resulting object [of the
Examiner’s rejection] will have the same number of faces.” App. Br. 13
(citing Mann Decl. ¶ 17) (emphasis added). That is all claim 1 requires.
And while Appellants argue that Angelidis and Requicha each relates to a
“very different” modeling technology, we are not persuaded that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not combine them. As the Examiner points
out, both are computer modeling systems that feature interactive modeling.
Ans. 28. In addition, Angelidis discloses that its techniques are
“independent of the shape’s underlying mathematical model” and that “[i]t
can be applied in principle to any standard model.” Angelidis §1.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent
claim 1; (2) independent claim 15 which recites commensurate limitations;
and (3) dependent claims 2, 4, and 8-14 not separately argued with
particularity.

Appeal 2010-012140
Application 10/839,033

6
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 5-7
and 16-31. Ans. 10-18. Appellants refer to the arguments made in
connection with claim 1, and allege that the additional cited references fail to
cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 14-15. We are not persuaded by
these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-31 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-31 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk